Taking part in technology education: elements in ... - Springer Link

Int J Technol Des Educ (2011) 21:349–361 DOI 10.1007/s10798-010-9124-6

Taking part in technology education: elements in students’ motivation Ossi Autio • Jenni Hietanoro • Heikki Ruisma¨ki

Published online: 22 May 2010 Ó Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Abstract The purpose of this study was to determine the elements motivating comprehensive school students to study technology education. In addition, we tried to discover how students’ motivation towards technology education developed over the period leading up to their school experience and the effect this might have on their future involvement with technology. The research was carried out as a qualitative case study and the material was collected through individual theme interviews. The study group consisted of four 15 to 16-year-old students, each representing a totally different case of motivation towards technology education. In choosing individuals for the study the main criteria were gender and negative or positive motivation towards technology education. This study found that the artefact to be made in school and the student’s freedom of choice had the most significant effect on motivation. Although, we must be careful with final conclusions as the research group was relatively small. Keywords

Technology education Motivation Gender in technology education

Introduction Finland has a well-known reputation in technology, however there is still no special subject called Technology in the national curriculum. Technology education is decentralised and its teaching distributed among various subjects such as physics, chemistry, biology, home economics and craft education. Craft education is in practice further divided into technical work and textile work. Because the position of technology education is quite different in Finland than in most European countries and there are even dissimilarities to other Nordic countries, in this study it is important to pay attention to the influence of different cultural and educational contexts.

O. Autio (&) J. Hietanoro H. Ruisma¨ki Department of Applied Sciences of Education, University of Helsinki, PL 8 (Siltavuorenpenger 10), 00014 Helsingin yliopisto, Finland e-mail: [email protected]

123

350

O. Autio et al.

During the past twenty years the understanding of technology and its relationship to society has been emphasized in the Finnish national curriculum. For example, in its general section the Framework Curriculum Guidelines (FCCS 1994) for compulsory education stated that the technical development of society makes it necessary for all citizens to be prepared to use technical adaptations and to be able to exert an influence on the direction of technical development. Furthermore, students regardless of gender must have the opportunity to acquaint themselves with technology and to learn to understand and avail themselves of it. According to those guidelines, it is especially important to examine the effects technology has on the interaction between humans and nature, to be able to make use of the opportunities it offers and to understand technology’s consequences. In the general parts of the national curriculum, the necessity for students to gain extensive technological knowledge has been emphasized to prepare them to engage in technologyrelated discussions and problem-solving. The National Core Curriculum for Basic Education 2004 (NCCBE 2004) outlines the meaning of technology in terms of a clearly defined, context-based approach. Daily life, society, industry and the environment as well as human dependence on technology are emphasized. Students are expected to be familiar with new technology, including ICT, how it is developed and what influence it has. Students’ technological skills should be developed through using and working with different tools and devices. One of the reasons outlined in the curriculum for studying technology is that it helps students to discuss and think about the related ethical, moral and value issues. There is a high compatibility with the goals mentioned in the new Finnish curriculum and the nature of literacy in technology described in the publication, Standards for Technological Literacy: Content for the Study of Technology (Dugger and Gilberti 2000). However, the main problem in Finland is that technological content is mostly taught in technical craft lessons. Traditionally, boys select technical crafts and girls choose textile classes. Although the national curriculum states that both technical and textile crafts are compulsory for both boys and girls in grades 3–6, for various practical reasons, such as scheduling and the number of teachers employed, pupils are forced to select only one of the craft classes. Furthermore, even when pupils can choose shared craft education, studies show that about 70% of the girls would still choose only textiles, while about 80% of the boys would choose technical crafts (Autio 1997). Moreover, Ja¨rvinen and Autio (2008) found that 63% of primary school teacher education students (n = 118) were not willing to teach technical craft after they have finished their studies. This means that teachers of technical craft are in short supply, while there are more than sufficient textile craft teachers. This attitude towards technology has a negative effect when selecting subjects such as physics in upper secondary school and on considerations of studying in technical universities and science departments in universities. Because of the segregation in comprehensive school, boys have more experience in the field of science and technology. Gender-based segregation and falling recruitment for scientific and technological studies are common phenomena in all the Nordic countries (Sjøberg 2002). However, it is a paradox that the inequity is particularly noticeable in Finland where for decades gender equality has been a prime educational goal.

Theoretical background Since the formal beginnings of education (Dewey 1913), motivation has been viewed as the primary determinant of student learning and school success. Research consistently

123

Taking part in technology education: elements in students’ motivation

351

reveals that motivation is critical not only to current academic functioning, but also to students beliefs in their future success as students and in their expectation of having positive school experiences (Shernoff et al. 2003). Furthermore, motivation is one lens with which to investigate factors that contribute to students’ interest, engagement and persistence in learning activities (Gilman and Anderman 2006). Although in its broadest sense motivation is defined as ‘‘the process whereby goaldirected activity is instigated and sustained’’ (Pintrich and Schunk 2002), most contemporary theories tend to emphasize one or more aspects that facilitate this process (Roeser et al. 2002). Gottfried (1990) used the term academic intrinsic motivation in a broad sense to depict a special kind of motivation for school learning. Academic intrinsic motivation involves the enjoyment of school learning and is characterized by a mastery orientation; involving curiosity, persistence and the learning of challenging, difficult and novel tasks. Deci and Ryan (1985) are interested in whether individuals engage in academic tasks for the intrinsic benefits associated with the task, or in order to receive some type of extrinsic reward. According to them, self-determination theory (SDT) posits the existence of three major types of motivational constructs namely intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and amotivation. Intrinsic motivation refers to engaging in activities for themselves, out of pleasure, fun, and enjoyment. On the other hand, extrinsic motivation refers to engaging in activities for outcomes that are separate from the activity. Four forms of extrinsic motivation have been proposed. First, external regulation involves engaging in an activity to obtain rewards or avoid punishment. Second, introjected regulation refers to behaviors performed to avoid guilt and internal pressure and entails the internalization of past external controls. Third, in identified regulation individuals engage out of choice in the activity that is not interesting per se. Finally, the last form of extrinsic motivation is integrated regulation. It deals with behaviors that while not emitted out of fun, are nevertheless fully internalized in the individuals self and value system. In addition to intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, a third motivational construct is amotivation, which occurs when amotivated individuals do not perceive contingencies between their actions and subsequent outcomes. Amotivation can be seen as the relative lack of motivation to engage in a certain behavior (Vallerand 1997). Amotivation has been found to typically yield negative outcomes: e.g., anxiety, distraction, dropping out, and negative affect (McDonough and Crocker 2007; Pelletier et al. 2001). Ryan and Deci (2000) assume that according to basic needs theory (BNT), humans have three basic psychological needs: namely, the innate needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness. The inherent need for autonomy is fulfilled when people perceive that they are the origin of their choices and decisions, and that they are acting in accord with their integrated sense of self. Competence concerns an individual’s need to feel a sense of mastery through effective interaction within their environment. The third need, relatedness, corresponds to feeling securely attached to and being respected by significant others. In this study we classified the elements motivating comprehensive school students to study technology education according to the Peltonen and Ruohotie (1992) model of school motivation. The model consists of four factors: (1) personality, (2) environment, (3) social relations, and (4) subject content. Personality consists of, competence in technology education, student’s physical abilities, test person’s character, needs, interest in technology education, and personal hobbies. Environment includes classroom environment, home environment, machines and tools in the classroom, materials to be used in lessons, and group size in lessons. Social relations are formed from, teacher and teacher–student

123

352

O. Autio et al.

interaction, classroom atmosphere, parents’ opinions, and friends. Finally, subject content consists of, school curriculum, products to be made in lessons, freedom of choice in materials and techniques, student’s internal feedback, and evaluation. This model has certain similarities to the basic need theory described by Ryan and Deci (2000). Competence in BNT corresponds with Peltonen and Ruohotie’s (1992) personality item where competence is one of the key elements. BNT’s relatedness corresponds clearly with social relations and BNT’s need for autonomy has certain similarities in subject content where freedom of choice and products to be made have essential value. Although the Peltonen and Ruohotie (1992) model was originally designed for general school motivation, after the interviews with test participants we made only small changes to the classification to fit better in technology education.

Empirical research The aim of this research was to examine comprehensive school students’ motivation in technology education and to determine the elements motivating comprehensive school students to study technology education. Besides that we tried to find out how students’ motivation towards technology education was formed during their life. The main research questions were: 1. How is the motivation in technology education transformed throughout comprehensive school students’ life? 2. What are the main elements motivating comprehensive school students to study technology education? The study was carried out as a qualitative case study and the collection of the data was performed using individual theme interviews which generated text. The interviews were first tape recorded and transcribed. Later the research data were analyzed using a content analysis methodology (Anttila 1996; Baker 1994). The analysis was carried out through determining out the interesting and essential elements motivating students in technology education. These findings were later classified by the themes and finally reported in the conclusions. Before the interviews each test participant also provided a motivation curve. These curves were drawn by the test participants themselves and were self-reports with no absolute value of motivation. The motivation curves were later explained in more detail during the interviews with test participants. The motivation curves indicate each person’s motivation in technology education during their whole life. The study group consisted of four 15 to 16-year-old students, each representing a totally different case of motivation in technology education. In the choice of individuals to be tested the main consideration was given to gender and to negative and positive motivation in technology education. Two boys and two girls took part in the study. Both groups included one student who was interested in technology and one who was interested in any area of technology education. All test participants came from the same school: Helsinki University training school. In the school curriculum there is nothing different compared with normal Finnish comprehensive schools. At the primary level (grades 1–6) pupils are 7 to 13 years old and at the secondary level (grades 7–9) pupils are 14 to 16 years old. In grades 1–7, craft and technology education is a compulsory subject, about 2–3 h a week, even though in grades 1–2 subject contents are closer to hobby crafts. In grades 8–9 there is no compulsory technology education, but pupils can take elective studies for about 2–4 h per week.

123


353

The test participants were identified as follows: A A A A

boy in technology education—Subject 1 girl in technology education—Subject 2 boy not in technology education—Subject 3 girl not in technology education—Subject 4

Results Since each participant had different experiences in technology education, in the following section we describe the educational career using the motivation curves. The motivation curves were first drawn by the test participants, but they were later discussed in more detail during the theme interviews. We must note that there was no absolute value for the strength of the motivation. Each test participant drew themselves a motivation curve and the value between 0 and 100% was based on their personal feeling and on their own opinion of their motivation. The factors accounting for motivation are described in tables, which show the elements that had the greatest effect (identified with bold and underlined text) as well as elements that had less meaning for the participants’ motivation (shown in bold or normal text). The factors may have had negative or positive effects on a participant’s motivation. The direction can be interpreted from the context. The significance of the factors is based on the participants’ direct comments, which were documented during the interviews.

A boy in technology education: Subject 1 The first test subject was a 15-year-old boy who spent all his school years in a university training school. In this study, he represented a boy who has studied technology education in both primary and secondary school. He lives with his mother and stepfather. His mother is a nurse and stepfather works in the army. Subject 1 plays indoor hockey and is interested in fishing. His motivation in technology education developed steadily throughout his school years. The first noticeable increase in motivation was found when technology education classes started in primary school, and, for the first time, he received sound instruction. Later the motivation increased when he could concentrate more on his own area of interest and he noted that his skills were developing. After finishing comprehensive school, Subject 1 thinks that his activity in technology education will decrease a little, but that his motivation towards technology in general will remain positive. He hopes that he can keep technology as a hobby. Subject 1 is a good example of the self-determination theory (Deci and Ryan 1985) which posits that different forms of motivation can be aligned on a continuum of increasing self-determination from amotivation to intrinsic motivation. It seems that Subject 1 has moved from his early childhood’s amotivation to a level where behavior in technology education is internalized in the individual’s self and value system. Research supports this hypothesis in a variety of life contexts (Vallerand 1997) (Fig. 1). Subject 1 became familiar with technology education in comprehensive school. Thus the school was the first identifiable element to affect his motivation. Subject 1 also responded positively to technology education; even at this lower level of the

123

354

O. Autio et al.

Fig. 1 Motivation curve of a boy in technology education— Subject 1

100

"A boy in technology education – Subject 1" motivation %

80 60 40 20 0

0…2

2…4

4…6

6…8

8…10 10...12 12...14 14…16 16…

Age

comprehensive school, craft and technology became his favorite subject. In his opinion, technology education is a comfortable counterbalance to academic subjects. While working with his hands, he can relax and forget any unpleasant matters. In his opinion, evaluation and good grades are not important in technology education, and so it is easier to derive internal satisfaction from the work. Subject 1 is competent with his hands and so his interest and his own needs are the most important elements in his motivation. For its part, the whole school curriculum has shaped his motivation. According to Subject 1, there must be a sufficient supply of materials and the tools must be in good condition in classrooms where technology education is taught. The teacher–student interaction also has been a significant element. The teacher did not cause stress and the pupils dared to ask questions that even seemed to them stupid. However, the final product was what motivated him most. The freedom of choice in the planning increased motivation whenever the product has been personal and something he could use himself (Table 1).

A girl in technology education: Subject 2 The next participant was a 15-year-old girl who spent her school years in the same university training school. In this study, she represented a girl who has chosen technology lessons in secondary school. Her parents are divorced and she now lives with her mother and older brother. Her mother works in the library and her father is a production manager. Subject 2 has no specific hobbies, but she plays guitar in her leisure time. Subject 2 has been interested in technology education since early childhood. The first increase in motivation was found when craft and technology classes started in primary school, and she learned something valuable about technology education. Later, there was some reduction in motivation because the new teacher was too domineering and demanding. Yet especially in secondary school the motivation again increased because Table 1 Main elements behind the motivation of Subject 1 Personality

Environment

Social relations

Subject contents

Interest

Group size

Teacher

Product/artefact

Needs

Materials

Classroom atmosphere

School curriculum

Character

Machines and tools

Teacher–student interaction

Freedom of choice

Hobbies

Classroom environment

Parents

Internal feedback

Competence

123

Process

Taking part in technology education: elements in students’ motivation Fig. 2 Motivation curve of a girl in technology education— Subject 2

355

"A girl in technology education – Subject 2"

100

motivation %

80 60 40 20 0 0…2

2…4

4…6

6…8

8…10 10...12 12...14 14…16 16…

Age

Subject 2 liked to work with machines, and there were more materials and interesting projects to choose from. The highest point in her motivation curve came when she had completed building her electric guitar and took it home. After finishing secondary school, Subject 2 thinks that her activity in technology education will decrease, but that her attitude towards technology in general will remain positive, but diminished. From the interview we can conclude that Subject 2’s motivation in her early childhood was based on external or introjected regulation and her grandfather was a highly valued role model. In the continuum of her motivation sensation seeking seemed to be an interesting element. According to Zuckerman (1994), sensation seeking is a personality feature that shows up in attempts to engage in new, varying, complicated, and intensive experience. In seeking this kind of experience, the person is willing to take physical, social, and financial risks. This kind of behavior is a typical sign of intrinsic motivation among some persons. Building an electric guitar demonstrated such behavior in Subject 2’s career in technology education (Fig. 2). Subject 2 considers technology education important because it is a necessary counterbalance to the theoretical subjects. Her first role model was her grandfather, and she has been interested in technology since childhood. She works willingly with large machines and hard materials and does not like to fiddle with small details. In technology education the atmosphere of the classes is usually relaxed, and the group is smaller than in other subjects. The effect of the school curriculum has also been important because the school has offered a sufficient number of alternatives. Wood-, metal-, and electrical work all belong to the curriculum. In making the electric guitar, for instance, several different skills and materials were combined. Subject 2 remembers the work of making the guitar as the most agreeable project of all. The impressive and valuable product that she has made for her own use motivates her significantly, but also increases her interest in other products (Table 2).

Table 2 Main elements behind the motivation of Subject 2 Personality

Environment

Social relations

Subject contents

Needs



Product/artefact

Interest

Machines and tools

Parents

Freedom of choice

Physical abilities

Materials

Grandfather

Internal feedback

Group size

New teacher

School curriculum

Home environment

Teacher

Evaluation

123

356

O. Autio et al.

Fig. 3 Motivation curve of a boy not in technology education—Subject 3

"A boy not in technology education – Subject 3"

100

motivation %

80 60 40 20 0 0…2

2…4

4…6

6…8

8…10 10...12 12...14 14…16 16…

Age

A boy not in technology education: Subject 3 The third test subject was a 16-year-old boy who spent his school years in the same university training school. In this study, he represents a boy who has not chosen any technology education lessons in secondary school. His parents are divorced, and he lives now with his mother and older brother. Both parents are lawyers, and Subject 3 is willing to pursue the same career. He has played tennis for seven years, but he has never had any technology-related hobbies. Subject 3 did not have any interest in craft and technology in early childhood because he was not familiar with it at all. The first remarkable increase in interest and motivation came when technology education started in primary school, and for the first time he learned some valuable technical skills. Later the motivation increased again when he could concentrate more on his own interests. In secondary school, he encountered some difficulties in his work because his skills were limited and the motivation decreased. After finishing school, Subject 3 thinks that he will not have any activities in technology education because he will be concentrating on his academic career. So his motivation to engage in technology education may well reduce close to zero after his school years. In the continuum of Subject 3’s motivation we can see that he could move from a motivation to identified regulation where individuals engage out of choice in the activity that is not interesting per se. The product to be made and freedom of choice in products and materials seemed to be the main element in his motivation. Unfortunately, these elements had only a short-term effect on his behavior (Fig. 3). According to Subject 3, technology education is not a significant matter in his life. Indeed, he considers it to be merely the hobby of a small minority of people. At home academic values are also appreciated to a considerably higher degree than vocational education. Subject 3’s thoughts regarding technology education reflect those values and attitudes that come from home. He places value neither on the craft nor on vocational education in the field of technology. Table 3 Main elements behind the motivation of Subject 3 Personality

Environment

Social relations

Subject contents

Character

Home environment

Parents

Product/artefact

Needs


Friends

Freedom of choice

Interest

Machines and tools

School curriculum

Competence

Group size

Evaluation

Society’s values

123


357

During his first school years, however, Subject 3 liked technology education. Then the product and the freedom of choice were some of his most significant sources of motivation. When he proceeded to more difficult and challenging work, his skills and competence were no longer enough and his general interest gradually came to an end (Table 3).

A girl not in technology education: Subject 4 The last participant was a 16-year-old girl. In this study, she represented a girl who has not chosen any technology classes in secondary school. She studied her first four school years in a university training school, but afterwards she moved abroad for several years. She returned to the same school, but in the 8th grade there was no compulsory technology education and as mentioned she did not take any electives in technology education. Her parents are divorced and she now lives with her mother, her stepfather, and two younger sisters. The mother is a textile designer and the stepfather works in the Ministry of Education. Earlier Subject 4 played basketball and football, but she has never had any technology-related hobbies. The highest point in her motivation curve was when she was in nursery school and interested in all craft and technology activities. Already in primary school the motivation started to decrease because there was much more compulsory work without any freedom of choice. Later there was still more decrease because she and her family moved abroad and there was no opportunity for technology classes. When, she returned to Finland, compulsory technology education had been abolished, and she did not take any electives in technology education. She doubts that her motivation will increase in the future because she has had too many negative experiences. According to Rogers (1969), children have a natural potential to learn. The learning is motivated by curiosity but the school will suppress the motivation. Ryan and Deci (2000) support the assumption that in school motivation will change. According to Ryan and Deci intrinsic motivation will decrease in the first eight school years. This phenomenon seems to be true for Subject 4’s motivation in technology education (Fig. 4). Since Subject 4 has very limited experience in technology education, she reacted very negatively to this subject. Technology education has been very unpleasant to her throughout her school years. She does not believe she has enough nerves or competence to concentrate on precise and detailed work. In this case the interest and needs of the individual strongly affected her motivation. Subject 4’s best memories of craft and technology were connected with situations in which the product was finished and she gained an advantage from it. The optional projects

Fig. 4 Motivation curve of a girl not in technology education— Subject 4

100

"A girl not in technology education – Subject 4" motivation %

80 60 40 20 0 0…2

2…4

4…6

6…8

8…10 10...12 12...14 14…16 16…

Age

123

358

O. Autio et al.

Table 4 Main elements behind the motivation of Subject 4 Personality

Environment

Social relations

Subject contents

Character Interest

Living abroad


Product/artefact


Grandmother

Freedom of choice

Needs

Nursery school


Evaluation

Physical abilities

Materials

Teacher

Process

Machines and tools Values in society

with freedom of choice have also stayed in her mind. The tools and classrooms were in good order at school so she does not believe that these affected her negative motivation. The teachers were also nice. Perhaps the most significant effect on her motivation has been that she has lived abroad a large number of her school years and she was never able to become acquainted with technology education (Table 4).

Summary of all test participants In this study, the artefact to be made and freedom of choice had the most effect on motivation in technology education. It seems that among some students these elements have affected even intrinsic motivation by expanding the amount of internal feedback. According to Deci and Ryan (1985), one way to achieve intrinsic motivation is to expand the feeling of autonomy among students. That is what happens when there is freedom of choice in materials, techniques, and in products to be made. The feeling of autonomy is especially important for older students who want and need more autonomy in their decisions. Some research in other life contexts such as education in general has also shown that high levels of autonomous motivation toward education lead to high academic performance (Burton et al. 2006; Gottfried et al. 1994). Furthermore, the entire classroom environment appeared to be important for motivation; according to the test participants, the classroom in technology education should have enough space for everybody, enough materials, and tools in good order. Deci and Ryan (1985) argue that informal learning environments which offer optimal challenge, plenty of different stimuli, and a chance to feel autonomy achieves effective motivation. According to Stipek (1996), it is even more important to pay attention to provide an optimal and suitable learning environment than to concentrate on students’ personal problems in terms of motivation. In personality elements students’ own needs and interests were definitely more important elements in technology education than competence and physical abilities, which are traditionally highly valued in technology education. According to Byman (2002), students usually choose and prefer subjects and tasks in which they are good and can show their competence. It seems that if we ask students to do too difficult tasks in technology education with limited competence, the motivation is based only on extrinsic forms. Social relations: e.g., teacher, teacher–student interaction, classroom atmosphere, and parents were also found to be important elements in motivation but not as essential as those elements in subject content, learning environment and personality. We concluded, that classroom atmosphere and teacher–student interaction were more important in making the whole environment attractive than in directly influencing motivation. Suitable learning

123


359

Table 5 Main elements behind the motivation—summary of all test participants Personality

Environment

Social relations

Subject contents

Needs


Parents

Product/artefact

Interest

Machines and tools


Freedom of choice

Character

Materials

Teacher

Internal feedback

Physical abilities

Group size


School curriculum

Competence

Home environment

Grandparents

Evaluation

Hobbies

Living abroad

Friends

Process

Nursery school Values in society

environment and atmosphere are seen as typical features of a positive affect. Positive affect for its part facilitates flexible thinking and problem solving, and enhances performance, even where the tasks to be done are complex, difficult and important (Isen and Reeve 2005). Furthermore, their results indicate that positive affect does foster intrinsic motivation, and enjoyment and performance of enjoyable tasks, but not at the cost of responsible work behavior on an uninteresting task that needs to be done. Other special elements in motivation: e.g., hobbies, living abroad, nursery school, values in society, grandparents, friends, evaluation, and working process had some effect on motivation among test participants, but proved to be less important in the formation of motivation in technology education in this study (Table 5).

Discussion In this study, the motivation of most of the subjects, in technology education was relatively positive at least during some parts of their educational career. Although, we must be careful with detailed conclusions as the research group was comparatively small, it is not surprising that both boys and girls are attracted to technology education because they enjoy working with their hands and like the independence and chance for creativity provided by these classes (Silverman and Pritchard 1996). Students who typically enroll in technology education are attracted to the types of projects they will be engaged in (Weber and Custer 2005). It seems that several other school subjects have more motivational problems than technology education. Additional studies, based on time sampling methods suggest that these negative perceptions are not limited to one or two of the hardest class subjects, but are pervasive across the entire school curriculum (Shernoff et al. 2003). We can assume that all subjects could use more practical methods, which give the students more independence, autonomy and the chance to use their own creativity. It appears to be the case that some students do not place a value either on the craft or on vocational education in the field of technology education in Finnish schools. In their opinion, the university is absolutely a better and more respected study place than vocational education. Usually, these views of technology education reflect those values and attitudes that come from home, and these attitudes are adopted already at an early age. Although an academic career is usually more valued than practical work, there should be a better balance between practical and academic subjects, at least in the lower grades and even at the high school level. On the other hand, motivation in technology education can be significantly improved by developing special programmes (Mammes 2004), where teachers

123

360

O. Autio et al.

are aware of the differing interests of both genders and consider ways of making the environment and the subject attractive to all (Silverman and Pritchard 1996). Of all the elements in motivation, the artefact to be made seemed to have the most remarkable effect on motivation and certainly appeared to have more value than the process. Also in Autio’s (1997) factor analysis, the practical advantage gained from having the product was emphasized more than the process, which for its part would have emphasized the external motivation or situational interest. Nevertheless, Ryan and Deci (2000) argued that extrinsic motivation can be changed into intrinsic motivation if a project is interesting enough and the teacher supports students’ feeling of autonomy. Reeve et al. (1999) have shown that teachers who support students’ freedom of choice and autonomy in decisions create more intrinsic motivation than those who are willing to control their students. Autonomy support is evident when an authority figure respects and takes the subordinate’s perspective, promotes choice and encourages decision-making (Ratelle et al. 2005). Furthermore, according to Hidi and McLaren (1990), individual interest develops slowly and tends to have long-lasting effects on a person’s knowledge and values, whereas situational interest is an emotional state that is evoked suddenly by something in the immediate environment and may have only a short-term effect on an individual’s knowledge and values. This phenomenon seemed also to be true in this study. Most of the students valued only the product at first, but later on internal feedback turned out to be one of the key elements in their motivation. For a long time, motivation has been viewed as the primary determinant of students’ learning and school success. Motivation is critical not only to current academic functioning, but also to students’ beliefs in their future success as students. Although, our research group was numerically small, this fact was noticed in this study as well. We are continuing our efforts in several related projects.

References Anttila, P. (1996). Tutkimisen taito ja tiedon hankinta. [Research skills and the acquisition of knowledge]. Helsinki: Akatiimi. Autio, O. (1997). Oppilaiden teknisten valmiuksien kehittyminen peruskoulussa. [Student’s development in technical abilities in Finnish comprehensive school], Research Reports No. 117. Helsinki: The University of Helsinki, Department of Teacher Education. Baker, T. (1994). Doing Social Research. Singapore: McGraw-Hill. Burton, K., Lydon, J., D0 Alessandro, D., & Koestner, R. (2006). The differential effects of intrinsic and identified motivation on well-being and performance: Prospective, experimental, and implicit approaches to self-determination theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 750–762. Byman, R. (2002). Voiko motivaatiota opettaa? [Can we teach motivation?]. In P. Kansanen & K. Uusikyla¨ (Eds.), Luovuutta, motivaatiota, tunteita (pp. 25–41). Jyva¨skyla¨: Gummerus. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum Press. Dewey, J. (1913). Interest and effort in education. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Dugger, W. E. & Gilberti, A. F. (Eds.). (2000). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology. International Technology Education Association and Technology for All Americans Project. FCCS. (1994). Framework curriculum for the comprehensive school (in Finland). Helsinki: State Printing Press and National Board of Education. Gilman, R., & Anderman, E. M. (2006). Motivation and its relevance to school psychology: An introduction to special issue. Journal on School Psychology, 44, 325–329. Gottfried, A. E. (1990). Academic intrinsic motivation in young elementary school children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 525–538.

123


361

Gottfried, A. E., Fleming, J. S., & Gottfried, A. W. (1994). Role of parental motivational practices in children’s academic intrinsic motivation and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 104–113. Hidi, S., & McLaren, J. (1990). The effect of topic and theme interestingness on the production of school expositions. In H. Mandl, E. De Corte, N. Bennet, & H. F. Friedrich (Eds.), Learning, instruction: European research in an international context (Vol. 2, pp. 295–308). Oxford: Pergamon. Isen, A. M., & Reeve, J. (2005). The influence of positive affect on intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: Facilitating enjoyment of play, responsible work behavior, and self-control. Motivation and Emotion, 29, 295–323. Ja¨rvinen, T. & Autio, O. (2008). Luokanopettajaksi opiskelevien na¨kemyksia¨ teknisen tyo¨n opettamisesta. [Classroom teacher students’ opinions about teaching technology education]. In A. Kallioniemi, (Ed.) Uudistuva ja kehittyva¨ ainedidaktiikka Research Reports No. 298 (389–400). Helsinki: University of Helsinki, Department of Teacher Education. Mammes, I. (2004). Promoting girls’ interest in technology through technology education: A research study. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 14, 89–100. McDonough, M. H., & Crocker, P. R. E. (2007). Testing self motivation as a mediator of the relationship between psychological needs and affective and behavioral outcomes. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 29, 645–663. NCCBE. (2004). National Core Curriculum for Basic Education 2004. Helsinki: National Board of Education. Pelletier, L. G., Fortier, M. S., Vallerand, R. J., & Briere, N. M. (2001). Associations among perceived autonomy support, forms of self-regulation, and persistence: A prospective study. Motivation and Emotion, 25, 279–306. Peltonen, M., & Ruohotie, P. (1992). Oppimismotivaatio [Learning motivation]. Keuruu: Otava. Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (2002). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River: Merril Prentice Hall. Ratelle, C. F., Larose, S., Guay, F., & Senecal, C. (2005). Perceptions of parental involvement and support predictors of college students’ persistence in a science curriculum. Journal of Family Psychology, 19, 286–293. Reeve, J., Bolt, E., & Cai, Y. (1999). Autonomy-supportive teachers: How they teach and motivate students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 537–548. Roeser, R. W., Strobel, K. R., & Quihuis, G. (2002). Studying early adolescents’ academic motivation, social-emotional functioning, and engagement in learning: Variable- and person-centered approaches. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 15, 345–368. Rogers, C. R. (1969). Freedom to learn. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E Merril. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development and wellbeing. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78. Shernoff, D. J., Csikszentmiahlyi, M., Schneider, B., & Shernoff, E. S. (2003). Student engagement in high school classrooms from the perspective of flow theory. School Psychology Quarterly, 18, 207–231. Silverman, S., & Pritchard, A. (1996). Building their future: Girls and technology education in Connecticut. Journal of Technology Education, 7(2), 41–54. Sjøberg, S. (2002). Science and Technology Education: Current Challenges and Possible Solutions. In E. Jenkins (Ed.), Innovations in Science and Technology Education (Vol. VIII). Paris: UNESCO. Stipek, D. J. (1996). Motivation and instruction. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of Educational Psychology (pp. 85–113). New York: McMillan. Vallerand, R. J. (1997). Toward a hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (pp. (271–(360). New York: Academic Press. Weber, K., & Custer, R. (2005). Gender-Aods. Journal of Technology Education, 16(2), 55–71. Zuckerman, M. (1994). Behavioral expressions and biosocial bases of sensation seeking. New York: Cambridge University Press.

123